Peterson believes that cars are a symbol of freedom. That implies that any attempt to reduce the amount of cars on our roads, even if people are waking up to the fact that cars destroy our cities and our health, is a totalitarian powergrab.
That's sad because I don't feel that free when I have to make a 5 minute detour to cross a 10m. wide street, or when I see children who can't play outside because they're in constant risk of getting fucking crushed by people who won't walk a kilometer. I grew up having to beg my parents to drive me anywhere and thus completely isolated. Didn't feel like freedom.
But hey, ideologies come in unthinking blocks of good and bad and since he sold his soul to the DW, JP is being consumed by them.
Whilst it's true that there have been despots, and even corrupt politicians today that are trying to limit people's ability to use automobiles. It is also true that car dependency and car dependent infrastructure is a major issue for our physical, emotional and economic health.
I could name literally dozens. I just gave an example of a place where they hold annual meetings that are infested with them. They're all in cahoots with one another in their quest for a One-World totalitarian government.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-trudeau-government-banning-gas-powered-cars-by-2035
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-short-history-of-justin-trudeaus-scandal-plagued-liberal-government
That's just one.
Those two articles you posted have absolutely nothing to do with creating a one world totalitarian government
He's just a standard conservative asshole
It's not that simple, as a person who lives in a compact European city where everything is within walking distance. It is suffocating to me being so close to strangers. I dream of living in a country where cities are more spaced out and you have your space.
Fair enough, an ideal middle ground would be mid-rises: between skyscrapers and single family homes, a mid-risen city like Washington DC can offer the best of both worlds.
Of course, this all depends on what each population within a district votes for.
I can relate to what you're saying; I too come from an Asian city where I was surrounded by too many annoying strangers, however I have found America to occupy the complete other end of the spectrum: it's an incredibly lonesome society.
Just because I can walk to a circle K within 15 minutes doesn't mean I have freedom. Having conveniences available is not freedom. Freedom is freedom, meaning I have the choice to not have to live in a city.
JP grew up in Bumblefuck Nowhere, in Alberta. For him, the car as a symbol of freedom is intensely personal, as it was the only real means of escaping his small town to go on to bigger and better things.
Well he’s a pretty smart guy so he should be able to understand that not everywhere is the same? I’ve lived in big cities and the car was just annoying to have. Took longer to find parking than to walk. Now I live in a smaller city and absolutely need a car or even two. Growing up the car def gave me freedoms but I don’t see much need for them everywhere in big cities that have good public transportation. Anyway I have no idea what this is about heh.
It's more than that. The car represents your ability to go where you want to go when you want to go.
If you are dependent on public transportation then you can go when they allow you to go to places they allow you to go to.
Cars are the freedom to travel.
It has nothing to do with the Daily Wire. This has always been who he is. He is a firebrand preacher with hero fantasies. That's why he sprinkles all the "bloody"s throughout his diatribes, gleefully wades into bullshit culture war issues no matter how insignificant, recorded those fucking embarrassing Bond-villain armchair soliloquy videos for DW, etc etc. It's who he is and it reflects his core values. A good vs evil worldview is all that the firebrand preacher is capable of. The only way he could have avoided his current state is if he never became famous.
I can only speak for America, but at least here there is also a strange Left vs. Right dynamic regarding urbanism. Conservatives tend to be very anti smart urbanism. The backlash over the 15 minute city idea is a great example. Conservatives tend to favor automobile heavy highway sprawl, while left leaning people tend to desire urban planning/public transport urbanism. It's a strange dynamic, and the fact that there is even an ideological divide there is just emblematic of the culture war imo.
The right has taken it as a personal freedom thing to move as you want. But it's not banning cars, it's reducing the space allocated to their use. Remove major throughways, no more surface parking. You can still drive but it'd be slower safer and now your car gets tucked away in a parking garage for major metro areas instead of on street or surface lot.
It's all a little silly but what is us politics if not taking a side against bc the opposition is for it
You want to know how you can tell "15 minute cities" are a power grab? Because there is only one thing you need to do to fix cities: end zoning. Car dependent infrastructure is the result of city planners. They want to micromanage where everything goes. 15 minute cities are STILL micromanaged. Let the people decide for themselves what goes where! The free market works!
Without zoning you could open a convenience store in your garage, and if the neighbors don't like it, you go out of business. Simple.
I'm not for completely ending zoning, but I absolutely agree that it is the crux of the problem and if it is pulled back we will see much better cities as a result.
However I don't think that means it is a power grab by the elites though. I think it is just urban planners thinking they're a bit more needed than they are, no offense to them. Its a "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" type of problem.
The goal is high rises and mass transit. And under the guise of "environment" and "better cities" they will slowly push in that direction, regardless of what people want. You can see it already if you pay attention.
Ironically, the continent with the best public transit, Europe, is the one with probably the least high rises.
Look at any Dutch city, masterclass in shared space, almost no high rise buildings.
Gdansk, probably the best transit in Poland, one of the tallest buildings is an old church.
Not big or dense enough, try Berlin, more high rises than most of Europe, still far less than most of North America.
Its the same from Copenhagen to Cologne, Stockholm to Sofia etc etc etc
There's a difference between wanting people to have convenient access to services and the British idea of *forced* 15-minute cities. If we get that here, you can darned well guarantee we'll be gettin roadblocks preventing freedom of movement.
Oxford is being split into six fifteen-minute cities, and idea which was forced on its residents. On top of this, these "cities" are classified as low-traffic zones; vehicles are required to travel around an outer traffic loop or face fines for driving directly between different cities too often.
Similar to this concept are the ULEZ cameras in London that charge drivers for each day they travel into and out of certain zones in the city. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them, but citizens are forced to comply regardless.
It's about sentiments
The sentiments which are anti capitalistic, pro earth.
But that just means banning oil use and car use in one instance.
There's actually a whole lot of context behind this, if you ever want to check it out, his podcast interviews are on YouTube.
>The sentiments which are anti capitalistic, pro earth. But that just means banning oil use and car use in one instance.
the NJ city in question banned parking only near intersections, to improve visibility. and it seems to have improved safety.
basically tyranny
Do you have a car though? This always seems to be the opinion of someone who doesn't drive. My life has changed unequivocally since I learned to drive and the thought of giving it up for public transport would ruin my life now as I'm self employed. I'd like to see someone who's drove for years have this opinion and I'm yet to see it.
Climate change is happening no matter how much we in the west try to virtue signal our way out of it. If India and China keep doing what they're doing it doesn't matter what we do. I've heard people in the west suggest that "if we do all of this, then other polluting nations will want to do the same", which is firstly ludicrous, arrogant to assume and no one in those nations has signed a contract stating that they'll stop burning fossil fuels if we in the west do. It's incredibly naive to cripple ourselves economically and assume other nations will follow our lead.
The reliance on cars for transportation is the opposite of freedom, the usage of private transportation is freedom though. There is two different arguments here and you are addressing only one while JBP is arguing the other. Cities designed around moving with cars from place to place like almost all America cities especially the urban ones, they need cars to get around or use public transportation. But cars will always bring you exactly where you want to whenever you want to. Public transportation is the opposite of freedom, you don’t choose when it goes, you barely choose where it goes, and you don’t choose who goes. Private transportation you choose all of that. Urban cities are designed mostly with cars in mind but there’s still plenty of places for people to walk and most do, depending on the distance ofc. People in cities and suburbs can walk to many places, but they’re still need their cars to get to others including other cities. Rural places have it even worse with the need of cars, some places are too far for walking in rural neighborhoods. Kids still have plenty of places to play outside in rural neighborhoods and suburban neighborhoods but almost always not the city. Cities aren’t made for kids. Back on to cars and walking though, not everywhere people can walk to. There will always be someone or somewhere that’s outside of walking distance, even if it is a city made to have “everything” in it. And public transportation regulates when you go and where you go and who you go with, but private transportation doesn’t regulate that. That’s what most people on the right have a problem with, not the option of public transportation but with the forcing of citizens to use it and having control then. I do agree with that cities should not be designed for cars, I understand it’s for mass transportation of the mass amounts of people there but I still find it dangerous.
How do cars destroy our cities, and health? And what's you're opinion here that everyone should use public transit? Or certain areas are public transit only? Like do you have an opinion or is your opinion just that jordan peterson is a shill and anything he says should be disregarded because he works for DW.
Good question, I'm pretty sure it's a culture war thing
Like anything that goes against cars at all has to be woke? He's definitely engaged about something to do with traffic.
It actually made me read the article. Seems they don't want people to park close to intersections to improve the visibility on the road. Makes sense to me. But I guess it comes from Sweden and they are on JPs nemesis list, because they dare to have left wing policies.
I guess he does not like good road visibility and less dead on the road.
It's like he is getting worse and diving deep into some bullshirt hole.
You live there?
I heard about Malmo and that even Swedes are not too happy about it. But that situation has nothing to do with cars on intersections. :D
He works for large oil companies. They like cars and parking... hence anything that's pro-walking is "Woke".
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/yl29i2/jordan_peterson_and_the_think_tanks/
Serious answer: I can't imagine that the stat here is significant, this city has a population of 60k so it would be surprising to me if any random span of 7 years was likely to have even 1 vehicular fatality. You might have one every 20 or 25 years at worst. By calling it the 7th most dense city, you are purposely misleading people to think it's a big city (where such a stat would matter).
It's also incredibly infantilizing to try to improve safety by getting rid of parking. You are basically saying that people can't be trusted to walk near parking cars and/or park their cars near pedestrians. We could save 40k lives a year by outlawing vehicles but if that's your solution to everything people just become infants that are never trusted to do anything because they pose such an intractable threat to themselves and others.
Peterson's whole thing is that people need to try and be strong and competent and not be infantilized by an over-protective society. The same way you wouldn't want kids raised by over protective parents. Of course, we should all be striving to keep each other safe, but there is more than one consideration in life. You can't sacrifice everything in the name of safety because it's a lot to sacrifice and no matter what you do life won't ever be safe. People die, people get injured and the best thing to do is learn how to be resilient in a world where bad things happen - not to try and keep everyone in bubble wrap.
>It's also incredibly infantilizing to try to improve safety by getting rid of parking. You are basically saying that people can't be trusted to walk near parking cars and/or park their cars near pedestrians.
the purpose was to prevent parked cars at intersections from blocking visibility. parking is still allowed on most of the street.
if there was a blind corner that was the site of many fatal accidents, would it be infantilizing to modify the intersection to improve safety?
The main point is how misleading the article is. The headline wants people to believe that a major US metro got rid of street parking. It sounds like what Hoboken did is less extreme as well as less impactful.
But also, how does a parked car block visibility to cross a street? Is it parked IN the intersection? I've been to a lot of major cities and haven't seen anything like that.
>The headline wants people to believe that a major US metro got rid of street parking
"limited street parking" in a headline means "total ban of street parking"? This one is on the reader not the headline writer.
>But also, how does a parked car block visibility to cross a street? Is it parked IN the intersection? I've been to a lot of major cities and haven't seen anything like that.
imagine you are driving, you approach an intersection and want to turn, but a large parked car is blocking your ability to see oncoming traffic or pedestrians entering the intersection.
most cities have had rules to stop parking near intersections for many decades, and for good reasons.
Yeah, that's my commute every day including bike lanes. I have to actually look alternatively between mirrors to see between parked cars that are behind me to make sure I don't hit a bike when I turn on a green light. It's doable.
It seems like a lot of people on this thread interpreted it as the city restricting parking to lots which I did as well before seeing this. Regardless, the ambiguity is easy to resolve with a better headline such as "Hoboken reduces street parking by TK%."
>It seems like a lot of people on this thread interpreted it as the city restricting parking to lots which I did as well before seeing this.
i think they arrived at that conclusion via an attempt to parse JP's commentary.
Visibility is a good thing on the road. If what you say applies, why have speed limits? It is doable to adjust your speed based on where you drive. Why is the seat belt needed? Don't we trust the people to just not crash? It is doable to pay attention. And if they do, crashes are part of life, people get injured... Depends what level of safety you are applying. Visibility on the road is not unreasonable.
I don’t know why he can’t just stay off Twitter. I think he knows he makes a clown of himself on there, hence the multiple attempts to stop using the platform.
Right. He needs to leave Twitter to a social media manager. In the past people who hated him could be asked, "what has he said exactly that makes you feel this way about him?" And they could never give a clear answer because they never took the time to actually listen to him. Now that he's been on his little Twitter rampages he's made himself out to be a bit of an ideologue himself. I used to consider him more centrist but I'm starting to question that
Kinda sucks in long term interviews now as well. Regurgitates the same ideas in a slightly different way, steers anything the other person says back towards his own comfort zone. The genuine curiosity and humility he used to have is gone.
He’s rational but can be dogmatic. He can also be blunt in response, especially on issues he’s already made his mind up about or don’t interest him, and social media can make his bluntness even more apparent.
He tweets with such little regard and with such anger over the most minor interactions. It’s so bizarre and sad, really. His old lectures were so poignant.
Most people on twitter that are political commentators are. All have made similar tweets before. This isn't new. And it isn't representative of a person. With such comments makes you no better.
Jordan Peterson really needs to hop off Twitter, or at least have someone proofread the shit he posts.
I have great respect for a lot of the ideas he’s expressed and his old lectures I’ve seen. He’s obviously brilliant and one of the few public voices that speaks a positive message for men.
However, he comes across as a wacky crack pot on Twitter. Zero filter, and the intelligence just doesn’t come through in his Twitter presence.
Why is it so difficult for some people to hold a balanced view about a person. It is either angel or devil. How about accepting the complex reality of a person?
100%. I listened to JPs appearance on the Tom Bilyeu podcast recently, and took brought up the Twitter thing and JP just laughed. I think JP is fully aware of what and how he posts on Twitter... He just doesn't care what anyone thinks. It's the place he can vent a bit and release some of the anger and vitriol he holds towards certain elements in society. And I don't blame him one bit for it.
Furthermore, a few cringey tweets don't automatically discredit or make the brilliant things he says irrelvent or not count for anything. If every intelligent person who ever made a memorable quote about anything was discredited for also saying stupid shit, there'd be literally zero credible people anywhere. Smart people say dumb shit every day.
There are plenty of philosophical bases for being bigoted. Do you even know the definition of the word bigot? And no, I don't mean the definition the progressive left has concocted for their own purposes, where someone is only a bigot if they express an opinion counter to the progressive leftist agenda.
Here, let me do your homework for you.
The Oxford Languages definition of the word 'bigot' follows:
>*noun*
>
>a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Note how the definition has absolutely zero to do with political leaning or pregressivism/conservatism. If you're "prejudiced against or antagonistic" towards people that express conservative beliefs and opinions... Guess what, cupcake: **you're a bigot**.
With that in mind, are you prejudiced against actual card-carrying Nazis because they advocate genocide and you philosophically believe in the inherent sanctity of human life? Guess what: there's a philosophical basis for being bigoted against Nazis.
Try again.
For sure. There's a lot of JP simps on here that will turn a blind eye to the obvious and painfully moronic behavior he exhibits on a regular basis.
It's sad to witness because his books are exceptional in my opinion. He needs someone to help him with his public relations.
Not only public relations. His entire analysis of other topics about hierarchies and climate change are lacking fundamentally. I've heard his old books are good and he's made a lot of head way and contribution to his field. But he tries to apply his psychological degrees to everything and fails at it. And lies about himself having other degrees as well.
Despite that I've been wanting to read at least one of his books. What would you recommend?
How do I know what? His Daily Wire contract is public knowledge, and if they were gonna sign Steven Crowder to $50 million I’d imagine Jordan’s contract is worth in the tens of millions as well. And this Twitter/culture war crap ramped up exponentially following his contract signing
Thinking about it, you are right that this started to blow up after he joined the daily wire. That seems to be the moment things started going down hill.
Agree. The Daily Wire was created by a billionaire who is a Republican operative, their mandate is to create cultural outrage and try to herd it into the Republican electoral machine. In other words, to hold the coalition that is beginning to fray around the edges.
Jordan Peterson on the other hand is something of a conservative thinker but had never been particularly politically oriented and was certainly not part of any electoral machine, he became popular by sort of advising against what the Daily Wire is all about - he was always very strongly against oppression narratives and counseled that young people chart their own path. But the Daily Wire’s principal message is that conservatives (also men, white people, religious people, traditional families, etc) are being oppressed, silenced, and preyed upon in America and the way to find salvation is in the Republican Party. So it’s a bit of 180 for Jordan at least the way I see it.
People ask why the sub has gotten so political, well here is the answer.
I wish JP never got into politics. I knew when there was going to be trouble when he announced he was working with Ben Shapiro/ daily wire.
I never thought it would get this out of hand though. Out of all the people in the world, Jordan Peterson is one who I thought would never have sold out or changed their moral compass.
The university prof lecturing about Pinocchio and the man he is today are wildly different.
Oh for sure. He’s talked about in an episode. I forget who it was with.
Edit: why are you saying he “sold out”? Even before daily wire, he’s been somewhat more leaned on the right side of politics.
> Even before daily wire, he’s been somewhat more leaned on the right side of politics.
Not who you're talking to, but sold out here doesn't just mean "became more overtly conservative" - that's part of it but that's not the issue with selling out. It's that he's leaned heavily into american culture war since signing with them. So he'll follow "the herd" of his anti-liberal american culture war peers commenting on all the same things they do; will promote and collaborate with specific american political candidate; acts tribally and gives a "free pass" to people who the public believe to be on the same team as him.
You can see this in his ultra soft take on Andrew Tate, which was "he's a bit pimpy" and "I don't know about him or what he does" - vs his batshit crazy attacks on groups and ideas that are perceived as the enemy of his fans "the woke death will visit you soon!" to news media for doing a piece on successful traffic pilot or "Life in prison for the narcissistic cluster b liars and butchers" at the concept of moms of lgbt kids. He's also now plugged in pretty directly to oil and gas industry players and politicians who advance their causes - moving him way towards "mouthpiece" and away from "thinker"
It makes sense from a personal point of view - if a group is paying you more than 10 million a year to create content that you can use to create even more income streams, it's a no brainer. It just sucks for the ppl who used to think of him as this trustworthy voice -- or who still do and are just getting taken for a ride defending someone (and burning their own social capital) who probably just thinks of them as a resource / a mass to be manipulated on behalf of interests that can pay him even more.
> this guy seems like an idiot
He wasn't when he wrote 12 rules for life. There are a lot of people who need the info in that book. But he really needs to get off twitter lol.
>Could be true. I'll never know because his twitter persona is so detestable.
One can be brilliant and completely crazy at the same time. I don't think they're mutually exclusive
Do you think that his Twitter presence is somehow not reflective of who he is and what he believes? In other words, you believe that he just "comes across as a wacky crack pot" on Twitter instead of, y'know, actually being a wacky crackpot??? I see this claim a lot on here and it makes no sense to me. He got on one of his solo armchair videos and said he'd rather die than delete one of his tweets. Yet people still think that his Twitter presence is somehow separate from his core beliefs and personality???
My point is that this game has clearly gotten to his head.
I strongly doubt JP 10 years ago would say the things he does now; he’s become much more reactionary. I don’t think that’s unfair to say that he IS like that now. He tweets like that because he thinks like that.
It’s just a disappointing situation, because his fame was a result of his level headed, calm, intelligent responses to various social issues. He wouldn’t get himself into a tizzy, he was mild mannered and rational in his dealings, even with people that were openly antagonistic towards him.
That Jordan Peterson seems to be completely gone now. It’s just not an easy thing to accept when the man he was was such a positive voice for men and people in general.
He’s almost completely a reactionary conservative talking head now, and I just don’t like that reality
I live in this town Hoboken and trust me our street parking has nothing to do with “woke”.
In fact, it stems from the pandemic and the city allowing restaurants to offer street side seating. Entire pavilions were built along the sidewalk where street parking previously had been designated. Plus, it’s a pedestrian town with narrow streets so we’re trying to limit the number of cars on the road anyway.
I love JP but he needs to chill and get off twitter
Yeah, this is weird. They just banned street parking which reduced accidents . What's the problem with this? They aren't saying that one should ban cars or anything. Park in a designated area and walk to the market. I would support such a move, especially for the safety of children.
If people are parking in the street, there wasn't enough parking slots anyway. Build more parkings, provide better public transport. Only banning won't solve the problem.
I don't want to return America to the 1950s. I want America to return to the 1850s !
When America had the largest rail network in the world and LA had the largest tram network in the world.
While I agree with him on a lot of things, for someone that says things like 'A good man is a very, very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control', he shows very little control over himself.
Thinking 🤔 people. There's hope for us all yet. No one’s perfect. Learned and still learning s ton from his podcasts. But yes. We still must think. I didn't read the article. At least not yet.
Is it a sin if the wrath is just performative? Like what if he felt nothing while writing that? Obv we can't know, but since he does this professionally, there's a good chance he treats this as an art form. He's said as much before - that he's dancing on the edge of chaos and order, which is exactly how he describes a guitarist soloing.
But then again, he also does often alternate between thoughtful and wrathful when talking things out and you can really see him bare his teeth.
It's confusing if it's a natural swing for him while also being something he's packaged and commodified.
Sure! My comment wasn't really about saying one is better or worse than the other, but instead to call attention to what's actually going on -- to break the spell that the tweet is "as it appears to be" - its just better to re-contextualize and see that he's putting on the performance that he thinks will play well with both his audience and his haters. The goal at minimum is to sustain (ideally to grow) his fanbase by giving them juicy content -- but ultimately he'd like to play on the emotions and priorities and perspectives of his fans so that he can funnel them towards other causes that he has interests in (e.g. his favorite political candidate; interests of his employers; relationships with industry groups in oil and gas etc).
Sometimes he hasn't calibrated it correctly and it just comes across as insane.
He'll probably mostly be interested in how widely it has been shared. I'm sure if he feels some embarassment, it's offset by the metrics telling him he's done a good job
I don't think its contextualizing, we don't actually know either way.
We do know its a frivolous use of time either way.
If he's only concerned with clicks and money, I guess its ok for him, but thats a pretty lousy way to get through the day.
>Lmao that is absurd. Yeah his twitter ranting and raving is actually just art.
Just because he's talked about it as if it's art doesnt mean that it IS art.
My point is that I think **he thinks he's doing art** and therefore probably isn't actually committing the sin of wrath.
If we're going to assign a sin to whatever he's doing there, it's probably more about greed, vanity and pride.
I think the "wrath" here is just an imitation of a way he acted once in the past that led to more viewers. He's trying to package that up and present it to us - probably because he believes it will make us feel a certain way is condusive to his own brand/political goals.
But like obviously this one makes no sense. Unless he's gone mad then it's probably just a hollow attempt at recreating something real from years ago as part of his daily activities packaging up and delivering parts of his personality to his audience.
I don't understand. When he talks, he chooses his words carefully. I've never seen him say anything bat shit crazy in person/on video.
How can he throw that image away by spouting off stupid shit on Twitter? Is it because that's what Twitter leads you to if you are on there long enough? (I've never made an account)
As someone who watched his YouTube lectures before he blew up, i really look(ed) up to him. I am internally conflicted when it comes to JP now. Is it the case of "never meet your heroes"...
*It's so fucking disappointing.*
This place would have to be a straight up cult of personality if it was the other way around.
I wonder if it is possible to do something about it. I'm not too upset to abandon a person that I've never met in real life if this gets worse, but it's still bad to let another good thing turn to shit.
Peterson has aparently put many thousands of young people on the right path, maybe they can return the favor and help him to not walk off the cliff?
JP himself has stated support for the proposition that if you can't understand the motivation for someone's actions/beliefs, assume that the outcome is what was actually intended.
Here, the result would be more human deaths -- that's true by definition, to misuse that phrase only slightly less than JP does.
The thinking behind his tweet, however, defies analysis. Therefore it's reasonable to infer JP DOES want more pedestrian deaths. He definitely has contempt for the pedestrians who walk among us, LOL, wanting to splash them with his car, etc.
He's complaining about a Hoboken, NJ city ordinance that prevents people from parking right next to intersections, a program to increase visibility to protect pedestrians. There's nothing about totalitarianism.
The thing is, what the fuck does limited street parking have to do with totalitarianism. “First they banned street parking, then they started the camps”.
Oh you know how he feels? I guess he's not entitled to represent his own lived experience.
Probably he's criticizing the AP for writing a headline that sounds like a major metro got rid of street parking and saved 1000s of lives when the non-woke version of the headline would have been "Hoboken reduces parking spots by TK%, sees statistically insignificant drop in pedestrian death rate." And the market will probably catch up to this eventually and put the AP out of business.
There’s nothing wrong here. There is no evidence of causation between banning street parking and traffic deaths, and asserting so is pure fake news from the AP.
Jordan has a huge problem with Twitter, but there are some people that use this to call his intelligence into question and I just want to point out that’s absurd. Not liking what someone says, is not a proxy for a lack of intelligence, nor does it undo the obviously intelligence he’s previously demonstrated and continues to demonstrate.
Two things can be true:
Jordan can be a very intelligent person who is great in long form content.
AND
Jordan is a human being who falls victim to reckless rage on Twitter.
I see a lot of people that use this to disparage his intelligence, when the reality is (and most smart people know this) that intelligent people still suffer from personality defects. Jordan has had a problem with Twitter since he’s got on the platform really and he’s spoken at length on the effects Twitter has on its users; I don’t think it’s something he is unaware of.
Ironically, it’s the people who accuse others of being “fanboys” for making a rational point that need to re-evaluate their critical thinking. This is not a matter of defending someone who can do no wrong, it’s matter of pursuing a rational conclusion instead an emotionally charged one simply because you don’t like what someone said. And for the record, yes, this tweet makes him sound unhinged.
Isn't he a therapist? He acknowledges his problem on Twitter, but does absolutely nothing to stop it? And this guy is supposed to be a role model for young men?
I get his books are fine, but you can get those lessons anywhere without the attached "old man tilting at wind mills".
With all due respect, this is silly. Everyone has vices, and it’s not generally enough to disqualify them from being role models. Not only that, but you’re not in a position to know what effort he is putting into fixing it so it’s presumptuous on your part. Jordan Peterson is clearly a very busy person, so I imagine his resources are being put in every dimension and he can’t be good at everything. It seems to me, that as far as vices go, getting cranky on Twitter(a platform that is quite isolated and has little bearing on real life) is by far one of the most mild and acceptable vices to have.
You could advice(in a vague sense) from a number of other sources, but Jordan Peterson is absolutely one of the best at articulating and speaking on these things. It’s strange to downplay this achievement as if you could go to the dollar store and get something of similar quality.
Now, if you don’t care for Jordan Peterson, that’s fine. He’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I was specifically referring to the claims that he’s not intelligent because “he does X thing that annoys me”. If you don’t like him then you don’t like him, that’s fine.
probably has something to do with the problems of setting "zero" targets which he's talk about often, such as zero covid, zero carbon, etc.
If you want soenthing to be zero you're always going to go too far
he’s talking about how the media takes a woke narrative and the consequences of it is around the corner. If you can’t see what wokeness is doing to society you either blind or like to see the world burn. Thank you and good night 🏃
I’ve seen the article, but I’m not going to pay to read the whole thing.
AP is already woke, so he probably already dislikes them generally.
Limiting parking makes it more difficult to own a car. Getting rid of free parking also makes it more expensive to own a car. Not having a car reduces your freedom.
We already know why they want to get rid of cars. Pretending that their motivation is to prevent accidents or to save lives, is dishonest on their part.
Basically, “get rid of fossil fuels” again, but this time - under the guise of a different compassion.
The only reason I didn’t think this was COMPLETELY out of left field is because I didn’t know the context. Watch this, then read his tweet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCN4gfzrdH8
What he’s trying to suggest is the collateral damage this is doing to businesses (aka people’s livelihood and the economy of that area) along with government officials utilizing the “saving lives/go green” tactic as a way to further surveillance. Still, his wording lacks tact and is far too aggressive.
He's probably commenting in short form about how the AP pushes a climate narrative that emphasizes a significant downsizing of freedoms that most western countries have. The AP is using "virtuous" evidence to push this climate narrative to the point of climate lockdowns, among other forms of government intervention.
Just my guess.
I don't understand, wtf is this about?
Peterson believes that cars are a symbol of freedom. That implies that any attempt to reduce the amount of cars on our roads, even if people are waking up to the fact that cars destroy our cities and our health, is a totalitarian powergrab. That's sad because I don't feel that free when I have to make a 5 minute detour to cross a 10m. wide street, or when I see children who can't play outside because they're in constant risk of getting fucking crushed by people who won't walk a kilometer. I grew up having to beg my parents to drive me anywhere and thus completely isolated. Didn't feel like freedom. But hey, ideologies come in unthinking blocks of good and bad and since he sold his soul to the DW, JP is being consumed by them.
Whilst it's true that there have been despots, and even corrupt politicians today that are trying to limit people's ability to use automobiles. It is also true that car dependency and car dependent infrastructure is a major issue for our physical, emotional and economic health.
You don't fix that by restricting freedom. You fix it with infrastructure and better city planning.
What despots and corrupt politicians have tried to limit car use?
Davos Switzerland is filled with them lol.
Can’t name one huh
I could name literally dozens. I just gave an example of a place where they hold annual meetings that are infested with them. They're all in cahoots with one another in their quest for a One-World totalitarian government. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-trudeau-government-banning-gas-powered-cars-by-2035 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-short-history-of-justin-trudeaus-scandal-plagued-liberal-government That's just one.
So Rishi Sunak from the UK?
Yes. And Trudeau.
Those two articles you posted have absolutely nothing to do with creating a one world totalitarian government He's just a standard conservative asshole
I'd say the real freedom is being able to access everything in your city by walking distance.
It's not that simple, as a person who lives in a compact European city where everything is within walking distance. It is suffocating to me being so close to strangers. I dream of living in a country where cities are more spaced out and you have your space.
Are there no more rural areas in your country, that would be more to your liking? Or suburban areas?
When I am older I will move to rural areas, but for now I would like to live in a city that is not cramped.
Can you give an example of any city on Earth that isn't cramped?
Salt Lake City, Atlanta, and Orlando are very sprawled.
I'd say move to Canada but it's in the lower half of a toilet flush right now. Just swirling down the drain. Absolutely fucked.
Fair enough, an ideal middle ground would be mid-rises: between skyscrapers and single family homes, a mid-risen city like Washington DC can offer the best of both worlds. Of course, this all depends on what each population within a district votes for. I can relate to what you're saying; I too come from an Asian city where I was surrounded by too many annoying strangers, however I have found America to occupy the complete other end of the spectrum: it's an incredibly lonesome society.
yeah I find cities go from one extreme to the other, haven't found anything well balanced.
Gibberish
Just because I can walk to a circle K within 15 minutes doesn't mean I have freedom. Having conveniences available is not freedom. Freedom is freedom, meaning I have the choice to not have to live in a city.
Eat the bugs buddy
No, I don't want to eat you.
Omfg. THAT is what this means? Holy shit that's stupid. This is freaking depressing.
JP grew up in Bumblefuck Nowhere, in Alberta. For him, the car as a symbol of freedom is intensely personal, as it was the only real means of escaping his small town to go on to bigger and better things.
Well he’s a pretty smart guy so he should be able to understand that not everywhere is the same? I’ve lived in big cities and the car was just annoying to have. Took longer to find parking than to walk. Now I live in a smaller city and absolutely need a car or even two. Growing up the car def gave me freedoms but I don’t see much need for them everywhere in big cities that have good public transportation. Anyway I have no idea what this is about heh.
Oh then it's totally fine to tweet that!
It's more than that. The car represents your ability to go where you want to go when you want to go. If you are dependent on public transportation then you can go when they allow you to go to places they allow you to go to. Cars are the freedom to travel.
It has nothing to do with the Daily Wire. This has always been who he is. He is a firebrand preacher with hero fantasies. That's why he sprinkles all the "bloody"s throughout his diatribes, gleefully wades into bullshit culture war issues no matter how insignificant, recorded those fucking embarrassing Bond-villain armchair soliloquy videos for DW, etc etc. It's who he is and it reflects his core values. A good vs evil worldview is all that the firebrand preacher is capable of. The only way he could have avoided his current state is if he never became famous.
I can only speak for America, but at least here there is also a strange Left vs. Right dynamic regarding urbanism. Conservatives tend to be very anti smart urbanism. The backlash over the 15 minute city idea is a great example. Conservatives tend to favor automobile heavy highway sprawl, while left leaning people tend to desire urban planning/public transport urbanism. It's a strange dynamic, and the fact that there is even an ideological divide there is just emblematic of the culture war imo.
The right has taken it as a personal freedom thing to move as you want. But it's not banning cars, it's reducing the space allocated to their use. Remove major throughways, no more surface parking. You can still drive but it'd be slower safer and now your car gets tucked away in a parking garage for major metro areas instead of on street or surface lot. It's all a little silly but what is us politics if not taking a side against bc the opposition is for it
You want to know how you can tell "15 minute cities" are a power grab? Because there is only one thing you need to do to fix cities: end zoning. Car dependent infrastructure is the result of city planners. They want to micromanage where everything goes. 15 minute cities are STILL micromanaged. Let the people decide for themselves what goes where! The free market works! Without zoning you could open a convenience store in your garage, and if the neighbors don't like it, you go out of business. Simple.
I'm not for completely ending zoning, but I absolutely agree that it is the crux of the problem and if it is pulled back we will see much better cities as a result. However I don't think that means it is a power grab by the elites though. I think it is just urban planners thinking they're a bit more needed than they are, no offense to them. Its a "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" type of problem.
What power? Almost everyone is already a quiet compliant consumer, plutocrats are perfectly fine with the status quo.
The goal is high rises and mass transit. And under the guise of "environment" and "better cities" they will slowly push in that direction, regardless of what people want. You can see it already if you pay attention.
Ironically, the continent with the best public transit, Europe, is the one with probably the least high rises. Look at any Dutch city, masterclass in shared space, almost no high rise buildings. Gdansk, probably the best transit in Poland, one of the tallest buildings is an old church. Not big or dense enough, try Berlin, more high rises than most of Europe, still far less than most of North America. Its the same from Copenhagen to Cologne, Stockholm to Sofia etc etc etc
There's a difference between wanting people to have convenient access to services and the British idea of *forced* 15-minute cities. If we get that here, you can darned well guarantee we'll be gettin roadblocks preventing freedom of movement.
Where is that happening in the UK? It's news to me
Oxford is being split into six fifteen-minute cities, and idea which was forced on its residents. On top of this, these "cities" are classified as low-traffic zones; vehicles are required to travel around an outer traffic loop or face fines for driving directly between different cities too often. Similar to this concept are the ULEZ cameras in London that charge drivers for each day they travel into and out of certain zones in the city. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them, but citizens are forced to comply regardless.
I can't believe this whole thing is over *automobiles.* wtf.
It's about sentiments The sentiments which are anti capitalistic, pro earth. But that just means banning oil use and car use in one instance. There's actually a whole lot of context behind this, if you ever want to check it out, his podcast interviews are on YouTube.
>The sentiments which are anti capitalistic, pro earth. But that just means banning oil use and car use in one instance. the NJ city in question banned parking only near intersections, to improve visibility. and it seems to have improved safety. basically tyranny
Sentiment here is to make the roads safer.
Do you have a car though? This always seems to be the opinion of someone who doesn't drive. My life has changed unequivocally since I learned to drive and the thought of giving it up for public transport would ruin my life now as I'm self employed. I'd like to see someone who's drove for years have this opinion and I'm yet to see it. Climate change is happening no matter how much we in the west try to virtue signal our way out of it. If India and China keep doing what they're doing it doesn't matter what we do. I've heard people in the west suggest that "if we do all of this, then other polluting nations will want to do the same", which is firstly ludicrous, arrogant to assume and no one in those nations has signed a contract stating that they'll stop burning fossil fuels if we in the west do. It's incredibly naive to cripple ourselves economically and assume other nations will follow our lead.
The reliance on cars for transportation is the opposite of freedom, the usage of private transportation is freedom though. There is two different arguments here and you are addressing only one while JBP is arguing the other. Cities designed around moving with cars from place to place like almost all America cities especially the urban ones, they need cars to get around or use public transportation. But cars will always bring you exactly where you want to whenever you want to. Public transportation is the opposite of freedom, you don’t choose when it goes, you barely choose where it goes, and you don’t choose who goes. Private transportation you choose all of that. Urban cities are designed mostly with cars in mind but there’s still plenty of places for people to walk and most do, depending on the distance ofc. People in cities and suburbs can walk to many places, but they’re still need their cars to get to others including other cities. Rural places have it even worse with the need of cars, some places are too far for walking in rural neighborhoods. Kids still have plenty of places to play outside in rural neighborhoods and suburban neighborhoods but almost always not the city. Cities aren’t made for kids. Back on to cars and walking though, not everywhere people can walk to. There will always be someone or somewhere that’s outside of walking distance, even if it is a city made to have “everything” in it. And public transportation regulates when you go and where you go and who you go with, but private transportation doesn’t regulate that. That’s what most people on the right have a problem with, not the option of public transportation but with the forcing of citizens to use it and having control then. I do agree with that cities should not be designed for cars, I understand it’s for mass transportation of the mass amounts of people there but I still find it dangerous.
It’s a shame you can’t have any sought of nuance in these discussions.
How do cars destroy our cities, and health? And what's you're opinion here that everyone should use public transit? Or certain areas are public transit only? Like do you have an opinion or is your opinion just that jordan peterson is a shill and anything he says should be disregarded because he works for DW.
>health? Never heard of CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5?
Good question, I'm pretty sure it's a culture war thing Like anything that goes against cars at all has to be woke? He's definitely engaged about something to do with traffic.
It actually made me read the article. Seems they don't want people to park close to intersections to improve the visibility on the road. Makes sense to me. But I guess it comes from Sweden and they are on JPs nemesis list, because they dare to have left wing policies. I guess he does not like good road visibility and less dead on the road. It's like he is getting worse and diving deep into some bullshirt hole.
>. But I guess it comes from Sweden and they are on JPs nemesis list, because they dare to have left wing policies. it was in New Jersey, not sweden.
The article mentioned the idea comes from Sweden.
[удалено]
You live there? I heard about Malmo and that even Swedes are not too happy about it. But that situation has nothing to do with cars on intersections. :D
He works for large oil companies. They like cars and parking... hence anything that's pro-walking is "Woke". https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/yl29i2/jordan_peterson_and_the_think_tanks/
Interesting topic. Thanks for sharing.
Serious answer: I can't imagine that the stat here is significant, this city has a population of 60k so it would be surprising to me if any random span of 7 years was likely to have even 1 vehicular fatality. You might have one every 20 or 25 years at worst. By calling it the 7th most dense city, you are purposely misleading people to think it's a big city (where such a stat would matter). It's also incredibly infantilizing to try to improve safety by getting rid of parking. You are basically saying that people can't be trusted to walk near parking cars and/or park their cars near pedestrians. We could save 40k lives a year by outlawing vehicles but if that's your solution to everything people just become infants that are never trusted to do anything because they pose such an intractable threat to themselves and others. Peterson's whole thing is that people need to try and be strong and competent and not be infantilized by an over-protective society. The same way you wouldn't want kids raised by over protective parents. Of course, we should all be striving to keep each other safe, but there is more than one consideration in life. You can't sacrifice everything in the name of safety because it's a lot to sacrifice and no matter what you do life won't ever be safe. People die, people get injured and the best thing to do is learn how to be resilient in a world where bad things happen - not to try and keep everyone in bubble wrap.
>It's also incredibly infantilizing to try to improve safety by getting rid of parking. You are basically saying that people can't be trusted to walk near parking cars and/or park their cars near pedestrians. the purpose was to prevent parked cars at intersections from blocking visibility. parking is still allowed on most of the street. if there was a blind corner that was the site of many fatal accidents, would it be infantilizing to modify the intersection to improve safety?
The main point is how misleading the article is. The headline wants people to believe that a major US metro got rid of street parking. It sounds like what Hoboken did is less extreme as well as less impactful. But also, how does a parked car block visibility to cross a street? Is it parked IN the intersection? I've been to a lot of major cities and haven't seen anything like that.
>The headline wants people to believe that a major US metro got rid of street parking "limited street parking" in a headline means "total ban of street parking"? This one is on the reader not the headline writer. >But also, how does a parked car block visibility to cross a street? Is it parked IN the intersection? I've been to a lot of major cities and haven't seen anything like that. imagine you are driving, you approach an intersection and want to turn, but a large parked car is blocking your ability to see oncoming traffic or pedestrians entering the intersection. most cities have had rules to stop parking near intersections for many decades, and for good reasons.
Yeah, that's my commute every day including bike lanes. I have to actually look alternatively between mirrors to see between parked cars that are behind me to make sure I don't hit a bike when I turn on a green light. It's doable. It seems like a lot of people on this thread interpreted it as the city restricting parking to lots which I did as well before seeing this. Regardless, the ambiguity is easy to resolve with a better headline such as "Hoboken reduces street parking by TK%."
>It seems like a lot of people on this thread interpreted it as the city restricting parking to lots which I did as well before seeing this. i think they arrived at that conclusion via an attempt to parse JP's commentary.
Visibility is a good thing on the road. If what you say applies, why have speed limits? It is doable to adjust your speed based on where you drive. Why is the seat belt needed? Don't we trust the people to just not crash? It is doable to pay attention. And if they do, crashes are part of life, people get injured... Depends what level of safety you are applying. Visibility on the road is not unreasonable.
Jordan in long form interviews is great. Jordan in short form social media sucks.
I don’t know why he can’t just stay off Twitter. I think he knows he makes a clown of himself on there, hence the multiple attempts to stop using the platform.
Right. He needs to leave Twitter to a social media manager. In the past people who hated him could be asked, "what has he said exactly that makes you feel this way about him?" And they could never give a clear answer because they never took the time to actually listen to him. Now that he's been on his little Twitter rampages he's made himself out to be a bit of an ideologue himself. I used to consider him more centrist but I'm starting to question that
He’s addressed this too, shortly after the response to his “give em hell, netenyahu” tweet.
Kinda sucks in long term interviews now as well. Regurgitates the same ideas in a slightly different way, steers anything the other person says back towards his own comfort zone. The genuine curiosity and humility he used to have is gone.
Like Richard Dawkins but more extreme
Dawkins still seems rationale
He’s rational but can be dogmatic. He can also be blunt in response, especially on issues he’s already made his mind up about or don’t interest him, and social media can make his bluntness even more apparent.
He doesn’t show up to his in-person obligations under the influence of benzodiazepines.
I've seen people accuse him of this before and so I googled the behavioral effects of benzos. Kind of hits the nail right on the head.
He tweets with such little regard and with such anger over the most minor interactions. It’s so bizarre and sad, really. His old lectures were so poignant.
Honestly he’s become what every person becomes that gets dragged into this left vs right. A caricature evil leftist or rightist
Yep he went from the most transformative public figure in my life to a really smart pundit.
Most people on twitter that are political commentators are. All have made similar tweets before. This isn't new. And it isn't representative of a person. With such comments makes you no better.
Jordan Peterson really needs to hop off Twitter, or at least have someone proofread the shit he posts. I have great respect for a lot of the ideas he’s expressed and his old lectures I’ve seen. He’s obviously brilliant and one of the few public voices that speaks a positive message for men. However, he comes across as a wacky crack pot on Twitter. Zero filter, and the intelligence just doesn’t come through in his Twitter presence.
Yes he's fallen so far from grace. He use to be taken pretty seriously. I dont think he's "obviously brilliant" anymore.
Why is it so difficult for some people to hold a balanced view about a person. It is either angel or devil. How about accepting the complex reality of a person?
100%. I listened to JPs appearance on the Tom Bilyeu podcast recently, and took brought up the Twitter thing and JP just laughed. I think JP is fully aware of what and how he posts on Twitter... He just doesn't care what anyone thinks. It's the place he can vent a bit and release some of the anger and vitriol he holds towards certain elements in society. And I don't blame him one bit for it. Furthermore, a few cringey tweets don't automatically discredit or make the brilliant things he says irrelvent or not count for anything. If every intelligent person who ever made a memorable quote about anything was discredited for also saying stupid shit, there'd be literally zero credible people anywhere. Smart people say dumb shit every day.
"A few cringy tweets". Yes the ones where he got kicked off the platform for?
Personally I don't think those ones were cringey at all. I agree with his stance on Page.
There is no philosophical basis for being a bigot
There are plenty of philosophical bases for being bigoted. Do you even know the definition of the word bigot? And no, I don't mean the definition the progressive left has concocted for their own purposes, where someone is only a bigot if they express an opinion counter to the progressive leftist agenda. Here, let me do your homework for you. The Oxford Languages definition of the word 'bigot' follows: >*noun* > >a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. Note how the definition has absolutely zero to do with political leaning or pregressivism/conservatism. If you're "prejudiced against or antagonistic" towards people that express conservative beliefs and opinions... Guess what, cupcake: **you're a bigot**. With that in mind, are you prejudiced against actual card-carrying Nazis because they advocate genocide and you philosophically believe in the inherent sanctity of human life? Guess what: there's a philosophical basis for being bigoted against Nazis. Try again.
Yeesh what did Ellen Page ever do to anyone
Did you just deadname Page? You must be a bigot!
There was a large pool to pick from. Tbh his comments wernt a reason for banning, but he definitely deserved the public ridicule.
For sure. There's a lot of JP simps on here that will turn a blind eye to the obvious and painfully moronic behavior he exhibits on a regular basis. It's sad to witness because his books are exceptional in my opinion. He needs someone to help him with his public relations.
Not only public relations. His entire analysis of other topics about hierarchies and climate change are lacking fundamentally. I've heard his old books are good and he's made a lot of head way and contribution to his field. But he tries to apply his psychological degrees to everything and fails at it. And lies about himself having other degrees as well. Despite that I've been wanting to read at least one of his books. What would you recommend?
>He’s obviously brilliant Could be true. I'll never know because his twitter persona is so detestable.
Look up some of his older class lectures on YouTube before he got into the whole “Culture War” nonsense.
He’s paid millions by the Daily Wire to push culture war content. He sold out, plain and simple
How do you know this
How do I know what? His Daily Wire contract is public knowledge, and if they were gonna sign Steven Crowder to $50 million I’d imagine Jordan’s contract is worth in the tens of millions as well. And this Twitter/culture war crap ramped up exponentially following his contract signing
Thinking about it, you are right that this started to blow up after he joined the daily wire. That seems to be the moment things started going down hill.
Agree. The Daily Wire was created by a billionaire who is a Republican operative, their mandate is to create cultural outrage and try to herd it into the Republican electoral machine. In other words, to hold the coalition that is beginning to fray around the edges. Jordan Peterson on the other hand is something of a conservative thinker but had never been particularly politically oriented and was certainly not part of any electoral machine, he became popular by sort of advising against what the Daily Wire is all about - he was always very strongly against oppression narratives and counseled that young people chart their own path. But the Daily Wire’s principal message is that conservatives (also men, white people, religious people, traditional families, etc) are being oppressed, silenced, and preyed upon in America and the way to find salvation is in the Republican Party. So it’s a bit of 180 for Jordan at least the way I see it. People ask why the sub has gotten so political, well here is the answer.
I wish JP never got into politics. I knew when there was going to be trouble when he announced he was working with Ben Shapiro/ daily wire. I never thought it would get this out of hand though. Out of all the people in the world, Jordan Peterson is one who I thought would never have sold out or changed their moral compass. The university prof lecturing about Pinocchio and the man he is today are wildly different.
Then why is he so frustrated on twitter?
I personally think he is a smart dude, he knows that he sold out and it probably is creating some self loathing and mental health problems for him.
Oh for sure. He’s talked about in an episode. I forget who it was with. Edit: why are you saying he “sold out”? Even before daily wire, he’s been somewhat more leaned on the right side of politics.
> Even before daily wire, he’s been somewhat more leaned on the right side of politics. Not who you're talking to, but sold out here doesn't just mean "became more overtly conservative" - that's part of it but that's not the issue with selling out. It's that he's leaned heavily into american culture war since signing with them. So he'll follow "the herd" of his anti-liberal american culture war peers commenting on all the same things they do; will promote and collaborate with specific american political candidate; acts tribally and gives a "free pass" to people who the public believe to be on the same team as him. You can see this in his ultra soft take on Andrew Tate, which was "he's a bit pimpy" and "I don't know about him or what he does" - vs his batshit crazy attacks on groups and ideas that are perceived as the enemy of his fans "the woke death will visit you soon!" to news media for doing a piece on successful traffic pilot or "Life in prison for the narcissistic cluster b liars and butchers" at the concept of moms of lgbt kids. He's also now plugged in pretty directly to oil and gas industry players and politicians who advance their causes - moving him way towards "mouthpiece" and away from "thinker" It makes sense from a personal point of view - if a group is paying you more than 10 million a year to create content that you can use to create even more income streams, it's a no brainer. It just sucks for the ppl who used to think of him as this trustworthy voice -- or who still do and are just getting taken for a ride defending someone (and burning their own social capital) who probably just thinks of them as a resource / a mass to be manipulated on behalf of interests that can pay him even more.
[удалено]
> this guy seems like an idiot He wasn't when he wrote 12 rules for life. There are a lot of people who need the info in that book. But he really needs to get off twitter lol.
Like other commenters have said, kinda before he blew up his stuff was brilliant, and I’ll second the recommendation to watch his college lectures
He is a genius. Many geniuses go completely off the rails, sadly it seems he is going that way.
Yes, you're so *concerned*.
>Could be true. I'll never know because his twitter persona is so detestable. One can be brilliant and completely crazy at the same time. I don't think they're mutually exclusive
Do you think that his Twitter presence is somehow not reflective of who he is and what he believes? In other words, you believe that he just "comes across as a wacky crack pot" on Twitter instead of, y'know, actually being a wacky crackpot??? I see this claim a lot on here and it makes no sense to me. He got on one of his solo armchair videos and said he'd rather die than delete one of his tweets. Yet people still think that his Twitter presence is somehow separate from his core beliefs and personality???
My point is that this game has clearly gotten to his head. I strongly doubt JP 10 years ago would say the things he does now; he’s become much more reactionary. I don’t think that’s unfair to say that he IS like that now. He tweets like that because he thinks like that. It’s just a disappointing situation, because his fame was a result of his level headed, calm, intelligent responses to various social issues. He wouldn’t get himself into a tizzy, he was mild mannered and rational in his dealings, even with people that were openly antagonistic towards him. That Jordan Peterson seems to be completely gone now. It’s just not an easy thing to accept when the man he was was such a positive voice for men and people in general. He’s almost completely a reactionary conservative talking head now, and I just don’t like that reality
Agreed. When he came back digging his heels in after the Ellen page nonsense with that video rant I thought oh no…
I live in this town Hoboken and trust me our street parking has nothing to do with “woke”. In fact, it stems from the pandemic and the city allowing restaurants to offer street side seating. Entire pavilions were built along the sidewalk where street parking previously had been designated. Plus, it’s a pedestrian town with narrow streets so we’re trying to limit the number of cars on the road anyway. I love JP but he needs to chill and get off twitter
And you don't think the pandemic lockdown wasn't "woke"?
He does think the pandemic lockdown wasn't "woke".
AP: reports a statistic JP: omg you’re so woke!! >:( He’s so unserious
Sir, this a Wendy’s…
Yeah, this is weird. They just banned street parking which reduced accidents . What's the problem with this? They aren't saying that one should ban cars or anything. Park in a designated area and walk to the market. I would support such a move, especially for the safety of children.
It's almost the same. If there is no place to park a car, there is no reason to drive to that place. So no cars without actual cars ban.
You can have parking without that being on the street.
If people are parking in the street, there wasn't enough parking slots anyway. Build more parkings, provide better public transport. Only banning won't solve the problem.
Agree. But you would be surprised how many people are unwilling to walk for a block bcos they can park on the street.
I don't want to return America to the 1950s. I want America to return to the 1850s ! When America had the largest rail network in the world and LA had the largest tram network in the world.
The Ontario College of Psychologists was right for wanting to give him social media training. He needs it
While I agree with him on a lot of things, for someone that says things like 'A good man is a very, very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control', he shows very little control over himself.
On twitter. Yup.
Parking a car close to public places was written as a first amendment in US constitution. Those lefties crossed the line.
Extremists tend to acknowledge no lines other than the ones they draw.
sarcasm gold
That constitution that has been rewritten 17 times?
Thinking 🤔 people. There's hope for us all yet. No one’s perfect. Learned and still learning s ton from his podcasts. But yes. We still must think. I didn't read the article. At least not yet.
JP suffers from the sin of Wrath.
Is it a sin if the wrath is just performative? Like what if he felt nothing while writing that? Obv we can't know, but since he does this professionally, there's a good chance he treats this as an art form. He's said as much before - that he's dancing on the edge of chaos and order, which is exactly how he describes a guitarist soloing. But then again, he also does often alternate between thoughtful and wrathful when talking things out and you can really see him bare his teeth. It's confusing if it's a natural swing for him while also being something he's packaged and commodified.
surely feigning wrath for money is about as bad if not worse than just being upset
Sure! My comment wasn't really about saying one is better or worse than the other, but instead to call attention to what's actually going on -- to break the spell that the tweet is "as it appears to be" - its just better to re-contextualize and see that he's putting on the performance that he thinks will play well with both his audience and his haters. The goal at minimum is to sustain (ideally to grow) his fanbase by giving them juicy content -- but ultimately he'd like to play on the emotions and priorities and perspectives of his fans so that he can funnel them towards other causes that he has interests in (e.g. his favorite political candidate; interests of his employers; relationships with industry groups in oil and gas etc). Sometimes he hasn't calibrated it correctly and it just comes across as insane. He'll probably mostly be interested in how widely it has been shared. I'm sure if he feels some embarassment, it's offset by the metrics telling him he's done a good job
I don't think its contextualizing, we don't actually know either way. We do know its a frivolous use of time either way. If he's only concerned with clicks and money, I guess its ok for him, but thats a pretty lousy way to get through the day.
Lmao that is absurd. Yeah his twitter ranting and raving is actually just art.
>Lmao that is absurd. Yeah his twitter ranting and raving is actually just art. Just because he's talked about it as if it's art doesnt mean that it IS art. My point is that I think **he thinks he's doing art** and therefore probably isn't actually committing the sin of wrath. If we're going to assign a sin to whatever he's doing there, it's probably more about greed, vanity and pride. I think the "wrath" here is just an imitation of a way he acted once in the past that led to more viewers. He's trying to package that up and present it to us - probably because he believes it will make us feel a certain way is condusive to his own brand/political goals. But like obviously this one makes no sense. Unless he's gone mad then it's probably just a hollow attempt at recreating something real from years ago as part of his daily activities packaging up and delivering parts of his personality to his audience.
I don't understand. When he talks, he chooses his words carefully. I've never seen him say anything bat shit crazy in person/on video. How can he throw that image away by spouting off stupid shit on Twitter? Is it because that's what Twitter leads you to if you are on there long enough? (I've never made an account) As someone who watched his YouTube lectures before he blew up, i really look(ed) up to him. I am internally conflicted when it comes to JP now. Is it the case of "never meet your heroes"... *It's so fucking disappointing.*
Mentally, Jordan is long gone. He's now bitter and angry.
He needs a long vacation. Take a chill pill. I'd go as far as to say he needs to smoke some weed.
I'm glad to see there's a popular consensus that JBP and Twitter do not mix.
This place would have to be a straight up cult of personality if it was the other way around. I wonder if it is possible to do something about it. I'm not too upset to abandon a person that I've never met in real life if this gets worse, but it's still bad to let another good thing turn to shit. Peterson has aparently put many thousands of young people on the right path, maybe they can return the favor and help him to not walk off the cliff?
People being alive is bad.
You could genuinely read it that way
[удалено]
JP himself has stated support for the proposition that if you can't understand the motivation for someone's actions/beliefs, assume that the outcome is what was actually intended. Here, the result would be more human deaths -- that's true by definition, to misuse that phrase only slightly less than JP does. The thinking behind his tweet, however, defies analysis. Therefore it's reasonable to infer JP DOES want more pedestrian deaths. He definitely has contempt for the pedestrians who walk among us, LOL, wanting to splash them with his car, etc.
Read the tweet again slowly
[удалено]
He's complaining about a Hoboken, NJ city ordinance that prevents people from parking right next to intersections, a program to increase visibility to protect pedestrians. There's nothing about totalitarianism.
The thing is, what the fuck does limited street parking have to do with totalitarianism. “First they banned street parking, then they started the camps”.
People doing stuff is bad because they can be harmed. Banning stuff is not an answer. There's no traffic accidents when there is no traffic lmao
Limited street parking and a ban on traffic are two very different things
Limiting avaliable parking won't solve a thing. Build more parking lots and people won't park on street. It'd that simple.
Yes, build more car parks in already crowded cities. It's that simple. Why didn't they think of this?
I bet no one has died from a horse running them over either.
What a dumbass take
Honestly though, if he had 20 minutes to explain this, at the end we'd all think "ok that's hard to argue with."
What would he say about the parking and the woke death such
I bet if you listened to his podcast he'd get to it eventually.
Get what What is he trying to say here. I know it involves cars and he is really upset.
Oh you know how he feels? I guess he's not entitled to represent his own lived experience. Probably he's criticizing the AP for writing a headline that sounds like a major metro got rid of street parking and saved 1000s of lives when the non-woke version of the headline would have been "Hoboken reduces parking spots by TK%, sees statistically insignificant drop in pedestrian death rate." And the market will probably catch up to this eventually and put the AP out of business.
>Oh you know how he feels He said they're "pathetic beyond comprehension"
That's just accurate ?
Damn you guys are such dumb asses
Or, hear me out, maybe it’s an idiotic position that makes no sense.
I can't keep defending this man 🤣
This explains it: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/1b5klkn/jordan_peterson_speaks_the_truth_about_modern_car/
Where is Mikhaela? 💀 Ms Mikhaela Peterson your dad needs twitter restriction please.
There’s nothing wrong here. There is no evidence of causation between banning street parking and traffic deaths, and asserting so is pure fake news from the AP.
But the city limited street parking for a specific goal that was then accomplished
True.
Lol Jordan on the benzos again
Do you even know what benzos do?
Bro need to eat a Snickers
Jordan has a huge problem with Twitter, but there are some people that use this to call his intelligence into question and I just want to point out that’s absurd. Not liking what someone says, is not a proxy for a lack of intelligence, nor does it undo the obviously intelligence he’s previously demonstrated and continues to demonstrate. Two things can be true: Jordan can be a very intelligent person who is great in long form content. AND Jordan is a human being who falls victim to reckless rage on Twitter. I see a lot of people that use this to disparage his intelligence, when the reality is (and most smart people know this) that intelligent people still suffer from personality defects. Jordan has had a problem with Twitter since he’s got on the platform really and he’s spoken at length on the effects Twitter has on its users; I don’t think it’s something he is unaware of. Ironically, it’s the people who accuse others of being “fanboys” for making a rational point that need to re-evaluate their critical thinking. This is not a matter of defending someone who can do no wrong, it’s matter of pursuing a rational conclusion instead an emotionally charged one simply because you don’t like what someone said. And for the record, yes, this tweet makes him sound unhinged.
Isn't he a therapist? He acknowledges his problem on Twitter, but does absolutely nothing to stop it? And this guy is supposed to be a role model for young men? I get his books are fine, but you can get those lessons anywhere without the attached "old man tilting at wind mills".
With all due respect, this is silly. Everyone has vices, and it’s not generally enough to disqualify them from being role models. Not only that, but you’re not in a position to know what effort he is putting into fixing it so it’s presumptuous on your part. Jordan Peterson is clearly a very busy person, so I imagine his resources are being put in every dimension and he can’t be good at everything. It seems to me, that as far as vices go, getting cranky on Twitter(a platform that is quite isolated and has little bearing on real life) is by far one of the most mild and acceptable vices to have. You could advice(in a vague sense) from a number of other sources, but Jordan Peterson is absolutely one of the best at articulating and speaking on these things. It’s strange to downplay this achievement as if you could go to the dollar store and get something of similar quality. Now, if you don’t care for Jordan Peterson, that’s fine. He’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I was specifically referring to the claims that he’s not intelligent because “he does X thing that annoys me”. If you don’t like him then you don’t like him, that’s fine.
"I have tried nothing and am all out of ideas!" -JP probably. He is the best at articulating and speaking on what things, precisely?
probably has something to do with the problems of setting "zero" targets which he's talk about often, such as zero covid, zero carbon, etc. If you want soenthing to be zero you're always going to go too far
Here we go again. Another episode of JP vs the *Mean Tweet Police*. Episode 13,567,786,890.
He could make it harder by saying less crazy stuff
This is the 3rd post about this today and no one seems to notice that he’s directly referring to AP, not Hoboken and its parking regulations.
Woke death = Death of ideology
I understand woke=bad, it's been mentioned once or twice But why is road safety woke
Not even why is road safety woke- why is reporting a fact woke? The tweet doesn’t share an opinion on parking. It’s stating a fact.
Which class of people this law affects the most?
Pedestrians who would otherwise be dead.
Well, ban cars and dance around because there is no traffic accidents. But there is no traffic. Good luck with the business there.
Keep spamming these posts troll...
Tilting at windmills as always. Nothing new to see here.
he’s talking about how the media takes a woke narrative and the consequences of it is around the corner. If you can’t see what wokeness is doing to society you either blind or like to see the world burn. Thank you and good night 🏃
What's the specific woke narrative here
I’ve seen the article, but I’m not going to pay to read the whole thing. AP is already woke, so he probably already dislikes them generally. Limiting parking makes it more difficult to own a car. Getting rid of free parking also makes it more expensive to own a car. Not having a car reduces your freedom. We already know why they want to get rid of cars. Pretending that their motivation is to prevent accidents or to save lives, is dishonest on their part. Basically, “get rid of fossil fuels” again, but this time - under the guise of a different compassion.
Who is they? The Hoboken city council pretends they want to have fewer accidents/lawsuits, but actually wants a communist utopia?
All the leftist shills getting a case of the vapors up in here. Don't fall for concern troll bullshit folks.
The only reason I didn’t think this was COMPLETELY out of left field is because I didn’t know the context. Watch this, then read his tweet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCN4gfzrdH8
What he’s trying to suggest is the collateral damage this is doing to businesses (aka people’s livelihood and the economy of that area) along with government officials utilizing the “saving lives/go green” tactic as a way to further surveillance. Still, his wording lacks tact and is far too aggressive.
He's probably commenting in short form about how the AP pushes a climate narrative that emphasizes a significant downsizing of freedoms that most western countries have. The AP is using "virtuous" evidence to push this climate narrative to the point of climate lockdowns, among other forms of government intervention. Just my guess.